By Journalist Rojbin Deniz.

Historical records recount that along the Aleppo–Manbij route, the Ottomans committed horrific massacres claiming the lives of nearly ninety thousand people, displaying severed heads along the road in a bloody spectacle intended to instill terror and assert dominance. This collective memory remains deeply embedded in the region’s consciousness, revealing that the impact of these Ottoman atrocities has not faded to this day.

What is unfolding today is not far removed from that historical scene. Two Kurdish neighborhoods and nearly half a million Kurds have once again become direct targets, as large-scale attacks are launched with the support of Turkish special operations forces and advanced military technology, carried out by armed groups composed of fighters from multiple countries, in an organized attempt to eliminate the Kurdish presence and uproot it entirely.

In Syria’s history, the first major uprising against Ottoman rule was led by Arabs and became known as the Arab Revolt, directly confronting Ottoman authority. The second uprising emerged against French colonialism, marking another key moment in resisting foreign domination. Today, events in Aleppo are viewed as a new extension of these struggles, as attacks are carried out by the Turkish state through mercenaries from multiple countries, with the direct involvement of the Turkish army, in an attempt to reproduce old forms of domination in a modern guise

Aleppo has become a battlefield that exposed the regional plan to reshape the Middle East. In the city, fighters of the Internal Security Forces (Asayish), local residents, and even children say they “witnessed everything firsthand.” According to the fighters, the attacks on the two neighborhoods were not carried out solely by ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra, al-Qaeda, or Hayat Tahrir al-Sham militants; rather, Turkish special forces were directly involved. This method of attack has been familiar since the battle of Afrin, with professional units advancing behind tanks, masked, and employing advanced technologies without hesitation.

Before the new year, a sense of optimism prevailed across the region, as many anticipated positive developments. Even General Mazloum Abdi announced that he would deliver good news regarding the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria to the public. However, the course shifted dramatically following a decisive meeting held on January 4. At that meeting, al-Jolani was absent amid reports of an assassination attempt against him. The meeting was effectively managed by the so-called foreign minister, Asaad al-Shaibani, who positioned himself as the key decision-maker, yet after closed-door discussions, the process ended without any clear outcome

Subsequently, information emerged about contacts held in France, confirming that the attacks would continue—an explicit indication of ongoing escalation. A strong possibility surfaced that southern Syria might be left under Israeli control in exchange for granting the green light to launch attacks on Aleppo and even on the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. This assumption was further reinforced by reports that al-Shaibani expressed gratitude to Israel, the United States, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and Barzani specifically for the attacks on Aleppo. His statement, “We thank you for standing by us,” inevitably raised a fundamental question: what kind of support, and in whose interest?

From the outset, Turkey rejected the March 10 agreement and exerted intensive diplomatic efforts to prevent any understanding between the Autonomous Administration and the Syrian Interim Government. Hakan Fidan stood at the center of this process. In contrast, the agreement was based on the consent of all parties and carried the potential to open the door toward building a democratic Syria with the participation of all components. In other words, the agreement was capable of placing Syria on a genuine path of democratic transformation, ensuring inclusive representation within the state, while also providing for substantial constitutional amendments.

However, Turkey insisted on keeping Syria captive to armed formations, employing them to serve its regional and political objectives. It sought to impose a system that recognizes neither peoples, nor religions, nor women living in Syria. Today, in the absence of a state founded on clear legal principles, what is being practiced resembles a “simulation of a state,” where agreements remain ambiguous: in the name of which state, and under what legitimacy? Nevertheless, external powers attempt—through media and diplomatic channels—to portray this process as a legitimate political project.

The image promoted to public opinion under the label of the “Syrian state,” represented by the figures of al-Shaibani and al-Jolani, is merely a tool in the hands of external powers to implement their political and military calculations in the region. The armed groups deployed on the ground were, from the beginning, manufactured by those same powers, foremost among them Turkey, which worked to construct the structures of political Islam. These groups, operating under names such as ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Jabhat al-Nusra, committed the most heinous crimes but ultimately failed in the face of the resistance demonstrated in Kobani and Raqqa.

Following this failure, a new strategy was introduced in November 2024, aimed at achieving full control over Syria by attempting to “legitimize” these structures under the labels of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and the Syrian National Army. Today, despite their appearance in suits and official photographs after the fall of the former Syrian regime, these formations remain a direct reflection of the mentality of the states backing them on the ground. Whoever claims there is a fundamental difference between al-Shaibani, al-Jolani, and Hakan Fidan must clearly demonstrate it. A necktie is not evidence of democracy or civilization; it is merely a new cover for old brutality.

Who grants legitimacy to agreements concluded with entities lacking any legal foundation? From which authority does such recognition emanate? Managing all political tracks from a single center clearly reveals the existence of a comprehensive strategy and a carefully designed plan. Leaving southern Syria under Israeli control and raising the issue of joining the Abraham Accords within this context form integral components of this plan. The genocidal-style attacks on Aleppo constitute a central pillar of this strategy. In practice, the Golan Heights have been removed from the Syrian map. The Israeli condition was explicit: “Turkey must not be on our borders.” In return, Turkey, through the Syrian Interim Government, pushed the Aleppo and Afrin files—located along the border line—forward, with discussions underway about handing over Aleppo to families and fighters from Uyghur, Chechen, Turkmen, and Uzbek backgrounds.

The objective of this operation is to place Aleppo, Afrin, and the border regions under Turkish control and its affiliated structures, while leaving central Syrian regions under the Interim Government’s authority. The Kurds are intended to be weakened and kept in a fragile position, permanently vulnerable to confrontation with Arab elements. Turkey, both domestically and in its foreign policy, has been the founding and approving force behind this entire plan, with the explicit aim of excluding the Kurds.

The six-day assault on Aleppo and the strong resistance it encountered once again exposed the scale of the larger regional game underway. These attacks were carried out by Turkish special forces employing advanced military technologies and drones, alongside elements of ISIS, al-Qaeda, the Syrian National Army, and the Interim Government, which was presented as a unifying political cover. What unfolded in Aleppo was a direct manifestation of this plan on the ground.

The current scene represents only a segment of a broader project aimed at reshaping the Middle East according to the vision of dominant powers, with the goal of establishing a new mandate system that guarantees Israel’s security and reproduces Western hegemony in the region. Within this imposed system, there is no space for popular resistance or for women to exist with free identities. Mandate rule entails the subjugation of the region to policies formulated under the supervision of Israel, Britain, and the United States, rendering any discourse on democracy, or the freedom of peoples, women, and religions, entirely meaningless.

From this perspective, the importance of the Rojava Revolution—ongoing for fourteen years—becomes evident. Led by women, it has served as a source of inspiration not only for the Kurds, but for all peoples of the region. Through the experience of North and East Syria, women have presented a new model of collective life and shared resistance, proving that freedom can form the foundation of a different society. This feminist liberationist stance today represents the greatest obstacle to the “New Middle East” project pursued by dominant powers.

Accordingly, every war waged in the region must be understood not solely as a military conflict, but also as an ideological battle. It is a struggle between a hegemonic approach that disregards peoples and women, and another founded on women’s freedom and coexistence among peoples. Al-Shaibani’s expression of gratitude to the United States, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and Barzani for the Aleppo attacks clearly revealed this ideological alignment.

The assault on the feminist liberation line in Aleppo exposed, with stark clarity, how the dominant mentality targets both peoples and women simultaneously. The violations committed against female fighters laid bare this mentality in its most grotesque form. Targeting women, mutilating their bodies, and attempting to crush their dignity constitute not merely war crimes, but direct ideological attacks on women’s freedom.

The struggle of the fighters in Aleppo encapsulates the truth of what transpired. The military commander Ziyad Aleppo and the fighter Deniz embodied the spirit of sacrificial resistance that characterized all fighters. Deniz, positioned as a sniper, eliminated dozens of enemy elements and saved her final bullet for herself. After she used it, armed groups found her and threw her body from the third floor in retaliation.

What was inflicted upon Deniz’s body reveals the most horrific manifestations of a lethal patriarchal mentality that continually reproduces itself across time. It is no coincidence that earlier footage of a Kurdistan Workers’ Party (YPJ) fighter being dragged by armed groups in Amed resurfaced today. The message is explicit: a hostile warning against women and against their success in defeating ISIS. These images are deliberately disseminated to legitimize armed groups and justify their existence.

The message directed at women, the Kurdish community, and the feminist democratic liberation model being built in North and East Syria must be interpreted accurately. The broader picture cannot be understood, nor an objective analysis conducted, without recognizing the ideological dimension of this conflict. Those who attack Deniz’s resistance under religious pretexts draw from the same mentality. Voices claiming that “women have no place in war and should remain at home,” including certain religious figures aligned with political Islamist structures, merely reproduce the same hostility. This behavior is no different in essence from the act of throwing Deniz’s body from the third floor by jihadist groups.

As demonstrated in Aleppo, the stance embodied by Commander Ziyad Aleppo represents the clearest response to anti-women mentalities that thrive only on war and destruction. He turned his body into a shield for civilians and summarized his sacrificial position with the words: “For us, there is nothing beyond resistance except martyrdom,” as he advanced toward the enemy without hesitation.

What is unfolding in Syria exposes the nature of the system currently in place—or intended to be imposed—through these attacks. The resistance of Deniz and Ziyad Aleppo is not merely a story of heroism; it is a clear ideological position against systems that generate war through their doctrines and legitimize genocide against peoples and women. Through their struggle, they exposed the plans aimed at establishing a mandate system in Syria and became enduring symbols for all peoples.

Today, Druze, Alawites, and Sunnis in Syria stand alongside this spirit—a reality that cannot be ignored when contemplating the region’s future. This truth demonstrates that the resistance embodied by Ziyad Aleppo and Deniz does not belong to a single people, but represents a unifying spirit embraced by diverse components, indicating that the future of Syria and the region can only be built upon this shared foundation.